View Single Post
Old 01-10-2014, 12:49 AM   #133
Prestidigitweeze
Fledgling Demagogue
Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Prestidigitweeze's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,384
Karma: 31132263
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Clara HD; Oasis 2; Aura HD; iPad Air; PRS-350; Galaxy S7.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiapDealer View Post
I mean really...
Who better than the convicted entity will know whether the sentence is fair and/or being carried out properly?
This post made me laugh, but then I realized that, in certain other cases, the convicted party was not only correct about the sentence being unfair and the means being improperly executed; they were also the only party who chose to point out the issue. Not to draw hilariously inapposite parallels, but retrials that hinge on bias often make the same argument, do they not?

Apple is in the wrong in many other ways, but that particular argument is one that isn't necessarily without merit. It might not be credible for Apple to complain about unfairness in this case, but perhaps it can be so for other parties in trials that involve corruption and/or prejudice at the judicial level.

Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 01-10-2014 at 12:51 AM.
Prestidigitweeze is offline   Reply With Quote